<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2016 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => "Turning an impossible discussion assignment into a needed rant about the $a[FSF]",
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2016/12/11.jpg" alt="An American tree sparrow hiding in the office" class="framed-centred-image" width="809" height="480"/>
<section id="general">
	<h2>General news</h2>
	<p>
		Today at work was a bit interesting.
		Just after I clocked on, a small bird made its way in the back door, which someone left open.
		I&apos;m not a bird expert, but I think that it was an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/American_tree_sparrow">American tree sparrow</a>.
		A couple of us tried to get it out of the restaurant, as having a wild bird in the store isn&apos;t exactly sanitary, and we eventually got it to fly out the back door again.
		I kind of wonder if it came in out of curiosity or if it was cold and wanted to be in the warm building.
		It is a wintertime bird in this area though, flying north to colder areas when the climate warms up.
		It might actually like the cold.
	</p>
	<p>
		My <a href="/a/canary.txt">canary</a> still sings the tune of freedom and transparency.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="university">
	<h2>University life</h2>
	<p>
		This week&apos;s discussion assignment asks that I discuss a time that I feel that a strategy wasn&apos;t aligned with the mission, vision, or values of the strategist.
		Where am I supposed to get such an example?
		I&apos;ve been searching the Web for one since Friday, but to no avail.
		It&apos;s not like I even know the mission statements, vision statements, values, or history of any businesses whatsoever, so it&apos;s not like I can just pull an example off the top of my head.
		Today&apos;s the deadline, so I finally decided to see if I could call someone out on their bullshit.
		Sure enough, I was able to find what I think is the mission statement of the $a[FSF], so call them out on their bullshit I did:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I don&apos;t know the mission, vision, or values of most organizations.
			I look more at what they do than what they stand for, especially because it&apos;s so easy to say that you stand for something without actually putting any effort in that direction.
			However, I was able to find what I believe to be a good example of a strategy not aligning with a mission.
		</p>
		<p>
			<q cite="https://fsf.org./about">The Free Software Foundation ($a[FSF]) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom.
			We defend the rights of all software users.</q> ($a[FSF], n.d.) This is the stated mission of the Free Software Foundation.
			In their mission statement, they claim to promote computer user freedom, then put a special emphasis on the rights of software users.
			With that in mind, it would be reasonable to expect the Free Software Foundation to be dedicated to only software user freedom, provided that they didn&apos;t attack non-software computer user rights.
			At a bare minimum though, they would need to be neutral toward or even mildly support computer user rights in general.
			However, while the $a[FSF] does make great strides in promoting the freedom of software users, they actively promote restricting other types of computer use, mostly in the form of media use.
			Sometimes, it just a case of the $a[FSF] suggesting that copyright holders maintain their nonfree licenses on the assets used by software while releasing the code of the software under a free license, granting users freedom with more than they have now.
			However, in other cases, the $a[FSF] actively promotes and uses nonfree licensing models.
			For example, the $a[FSF] promotes and uses nonfree licenses for works of opinion ($a[FSF], 2016) and promotes the nonfree $a[GFDL] ($a[GNU] &quot;Free&quot; Documentation License) for documentation.
			The $a[GFDL] is free in name only, and actually prohibits modification of certain parts of the documents that it covers ($a[FSF], 2016), specifically opinionative sections that have been needlessly injected into an otherwise functional work.
		</p>
		<p>
			This incongruence between the mission statement and the actions (strategy) of the foundation has a big effect on their support base.
			Some people blindly follow the $a[FSF], no matter what they say.
			Some people are actually convinced that nonsoftware doesn&apos;t need to be free by the $a[FSF].
			Still other $a[FSF] supporters support most of what the $a[FSF] says, while rejecting their views on nonsoftware.
			For example, Jason Self, a strong supporter of the $a[FSF], has said <q cite="https://jxself.org/the-gfdl.shtml">There are those that, rightly, object to invariant sections.
			As I&apos;ve said before all creative works should be free.</q> (Self, 2016) (For context, invariant sections are the opinionative sections injected into (for example) manuals; these sections may not be modified and may not be removed.) This means that the $a[FSF] doesn&apos;t have the unified front that would help them spread their message more effectively.
			Additionally, there are also those of us that have come to reject the $a[FSF] themselves over the issue.
			I used to donate \$500 $a[USD] to them per year, but now, I give them nothing.
			I feel like they&apos;re fighting against what I believe in, despite their mission statement clearly standing for something that I agree with.
			I&apos;m not the only one either; others have told me that they don&apos;t support the $a[FSF] for the same reason.
			Likewise, their decision to make their opinionative works nonfree and inject them into manuals, forbidding their removal, has gotten the entire manuals thrown out of the Debian operating system (Debian, 2016).
		</p>
		<div class="APA_references">
			<p>
				References:
			</p>
			<p>
				The Debian Project.
				(2016, July 5).
				General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main.
				Retrieved from <a href="https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001"><code>https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001</code></a>
			</p>
			<p>
				Free Software Foundation.
				(2016, November 18).
				Various Licenses and Comments about Them- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation.
				Retrieved from <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses"><code>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses</code></a>
			</p>
			<p>
				Free Software Foundation.
				(2016, November 18).
				How to Use the Optional Features of the GFDL- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation.
				Retrieved from <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html#SEC1"><code>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html#SEC1</code></a>
			</p>
			<p>
				Free Software Foundation.
				(n.d.).
				Free software is a matter of liberty, not price — Free Software Foundation - working together for free software.
				Retrieved from <a href="https://fsf.org./about"><code>https://fsf.org./about</code></a>
			</p>
			<p>
				Self, J.
				(2016, October 16).
				The GFDL.
				Retrieved from <a href="https://jxself.org/the-gfdl.shtml"><code>https://jxself.org/the-gfdl.shtml</code></a>
			</p>
		</div>
	</blockquote>
	<p>
		After finishing the discussion post, I graded the table submissions from last week.
		That was a more painful process than I originally anticipated.
		One student had an entirely different interpretation of the assignment than I did, and because the assignment instructions were unclear, I needed to find a way to grade fairly based on that.
		Their interpretation was probably as valid as mine.
		The other two students whose work I graded didn&apos;t express their ideas very clearly.
		It was a challenge to separate the poorly-expressed correct ideas from the actually-bad ideas.
		I also started on my <a href="/en/coursework/BUS1101/Strengths_weaknesses_opportunities_and_threats.xhtml"><span title="Principles of Business Management">BUS 1101</span> essay</a>, though I didn&apos;t have the time to get much of it done.
		Still though, it was a start, and still, I have almost three days to complete both it and my one other remaining assignment for the week (besides the rest of the discussion).
	</p>
</section>
END
);
